Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

For me, the ideas surrounding the cosmological debate are the most difficult to comprehend. Everything we know has a beginning and an end, so to say the universe never started and never ends is outside of my grasp. I like to think of the set in the “Truman Show” as the universe–we briefly talked about this earlier this semester. It is difficult to conceptualize the universe as infinite, never ending, and on forever, in terms of space. Hypothetically, this would suggest the universe is infinite in terms of time as well. It is also difficult to imagine the universe as finite. Like the Truman Show, could the universal boundary just be a wall, with something on the other side?
I also find difficulty in accepting the big bang theory as the explanation for the beginning of the universe. As Turok said in Randerson’s article, there doesn’t have to be a beginning of time. Time is relative, as it only applies to dynamic systems. Maybe the universe is a static state system. Of course all observation would prove this to be wrong, but what if we considered the cycle of the universe. If the universe is a cycle of “big bangs” and supernovas, and it never deviates from this “cycle”, then nothing really does change, it just happens again and again. I would love to see the day when we figure out how to directly measure the mysterious universal variables, that is without any sort of extrapolation. It seems that theoretical physicists must make many assumptions to theorize how the universe works. We have no way of testing these assumptions directly. Then again, is there really any objective and direct way to proceed?

The universe is a subject that absolutely fascinates me. I was amazed when I looked at the picture of the 10,000 galaxies. I think that seeing something like that puts things in perspective a little bit for me. Can we really doubt the possibility of there being life in one of these other galaxies? Can we really be arrogant enough to think that God made all of that just for us?
The concept of infinity pertaining to time and space is also something that I like to think about. I find it so interesting that everything humans do is based around these two concepts, when in the scope of the universe it might not even apply. The universe might not be bounded by space and time. And because we are so wrapped up into these concepts, it’s difficult for us to think of other possibilities.
I also had not thought about why Christians and scientists focus on evolution vs. creationism as opposed to the origins of the Earth, but it makes more sense after reading the chapter in the book.

Honestly, I was a little disappointed with the content of the readings for this class. They seemed to brush over the topics without going into a lot of detail. The concepts are difficult to understand, but more depth could have shed more light on them. However, cosmology has always fascinated me, and the ideas that this topic brings about makes me excited for our discussion.

The concept of multiple Big Bangs is interesting because it seems almost like a paradox. The universe is constantly expanding, so it makes sense that at some point it will reach its limit and not contain enough energy, momentum or mass to continue expanding outwards. The laws of conservation of energy seem to support the continuing expansion and contraction, yet the laws of thermodynamics state that a mass system will not spontaneously reverse to its original state. From this idea, it could be concluded that the universe has infinitely existed, and will continue undergoing Big Bangs and Big Crunches. The idea of an infinitely changing universe is mind-blowing!

Chapter 24 discussed the history of Cosmologies. From my perspective, Theology is not prevalent in the scientific study on the origins of the universe. The reasons for this is because the evidence collected so far does not directly contradict Genesis as was the case with fossils, twentieth century cosmology is a very specialized field dominated by complicated mathematics, and most people do not find questions about the Universe to be as personal as questions about the human existence. Why must we apply religion to everything? I understand the “Creator” made everything so all of existence bears a reference back to them, but is it a search for answers, or simply more rummaging around for “proof” that humans are special? Genesis states that God made Man in his image and sets Human Kind apart from animals by giving Adam domain over them. A continuously expanding universe means the universe is eternal and there was no single moment of creation. Without a single moment of creation there cannot be a Creation Origin. This would imply that Humans Beings were not created by a Higher Being known as “God”, but the Universe is always creating energy, and out of a random Big Bang, came life on our little blue planet.

I will be honest in admitting that many of the concepts relating to cosmology and the Big Bang theory are completely foreign to me. However, when I read Chapter 24, McConnell points out that creationists found that refuting the big bang theory would possibly "challenge biological evolutionary thought." I find this ironic. There is much more foundation and evidence found to support evolution than the big bang theory. This is yet another reason I find it difficult to be open to creation arguments when everything they put out there to dispute evolution arises from hypothetical situations or nothing that relies on concrete evidence. Though science is responsible for the discovery and explanation of many things, it seems that it is always in competition with religion. To be honest after I read many things in this class, I find myself wondering when we are going to hear religion's opposition. Cosmology and the Big Bang theory is yet another example. Anything that minutely suggests that God was not responsible as our creator or disputes Christianity's creation story, will always spark a debate. I do not have enough background information to agree with the Big Bang theory. However from the readings it is evident that the universe is expanding and has been for much longer than Genesis can explain. Once again Religion usually just states what happened without any evidence into how.

I don’t understand what evidence NASA is using when it implies that there are only a limited number of galaxies. I always understood space as infinite much like the article from the Guardian. In that same article I found the theory very intriguing that the universe must be at least a trillion years old. I find that makes sense because I can’t envision how the universe would be created or destroyed, unless of course there was a God. Professor Turok said, “There doesn’t have to be a beginning of time. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinitely large.” That is the only way I can envision it. If the universe only had a limited number of galaxies, would there only be a limited amount of space surrounding them? If there was only a limited amount of space, would it be enclosed by a sort of atmosphere, such as one that encloses Earth? These types of questions just blow my mind, where I can think of it in no other way than infinite. It is very similar to the confusion I create for myself when I try to answer how God was created. The article of the Guardian hypothesizes that “the universe will carry on expanding until all the stars burn out.” I can’t imagine there never being a universe, even if that means that nothing exists. Even if the stars burn out and nothing is left, doesn’t the universe still remain intact?

Cosmology is definitely my favorite discussion topic. T my understanding one of the reasons they know the universe has an age is because theorists suspect that if the universe was infinitely old all of the light in the universe would have reached us by now making our night sky impossible to have. One of the concepts pertaining to the big bang that I have trouble visualizing is whether or not the big bang occurred as a singular point in the already existing infinite space, or if the explosion gave birth to space, the cosmos, and the physical properties they adhere to.
Another interesting fact is that galaxies are colliding and forming new larger galaxies. This is possible because of the ultra-dense super massive black holes at the center of each galaxy, and because galaxies are moving all over the place.
I have a hard time thinking of the universe as a 3d model, especially if it is supposedly infinite. If a big crunch does occur, wouldn't it have to happen at the center of the universe allowing for the big bang to thrust matter and energy in every direction? Also a few theoretical concepts that are being toyed with now are the theories of negative matter, and negative energy. Their existence is unknown, but if we were to ever discover and harness negative matter or negative energy we could do some pretty groovy things, like deep space, and time travel. These are some hard concepts to wrap my brain around.

The article about Texas’s new rule brings up an interesting point: that teaching evolution as questionable leaves room for people to begin wanting alternative theories for the history of the universe and who knows what else from there. I’d never really thought about that consequence to allowing evolution to be taught as a debatable theory and it adds a whole new dimension to that argument of whether to teach ID in schools.

As I read the Randerson article, I am amazed by the notion that there could have been multiple bangs before our “big” bang! I never in my life probably would have questioned that and so I am amazed that someone even had the notion to find out if ours was the only one. I have never heard this theory before and I am not quite sure what to make of it. It would make sense if that meant the universe/time was infinitely old and large, but it makes us humans seem that much more inconsequential, which is a depressing thought. On the other hand, it could make life seem that much more incredible…
I liked looking at the deep space photos. The universe is quite pretty – and huge!! The fact that the camera “captured ancient photons of light that began traversing the universe even before Earth existed” is mind-boggling! I can hardly even fathom that idea.

The Hubble deep field images were really amazing. It’s striking to see the other galaxies in such neatly contained, unique forms. Looking at the photos makes me go back and forth on the question “Did God create this?” I still don’t have a concrete belief either way, and looking at the Hubble pictures makes me consider both alternatives.

1) God did create the universe. The neatly contained shapes of the other galaxies are so perfect looking that it is hard to believe that they were made by the chances of different material coming together over time to form a galaxy. There is so much out there that it is hard to comprehend any way that it could all be formed by random collisions. If other galaxies came together on their own, then why aren’t they all the same?
2) God did not create the universe. The Hubble images show how massively huge our universe really is. With all the other galaxies in the Hubble images alone, it would seem likely that there is life somewhere else other there. But if you believe that God created the universe, and follow the accounts of the Bible, there isn’t other life in the universe. Why would God make Earth the ONLY place for life when he created so much other space? I can’t foresee Earth being the only place for life considering how large our universe if. Furthermore, why would God create all that extra space if humans are the only life form? This lends me to believe God did not create the universe.

"I think it is much more likely to be far older than a trillion years though," said Prof Turok. "There doesn't have to be a beginning of time. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinitely large." Whenever I think of the idea that the universe could be infinitely old I get stuck on one thought. Given enough time even the most complex occurrence must repeat itself. If the universe in finitely old, it means that we have all lived and died infinite times in exactly the same way as we are in the process of right now (as well as in different ways). For this reason it’s interesting to me when people think science leads to atheism—these types of thoughts are what give me a strong sense of spirituality—there is so much about the extent and meaning of existence that we don’t understand.

“There doesn't have to be a beginning of time. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinitely large." –Professor Neil Turok.

Before I read James Randerson’s article on the Big Bang Theory, I never questioned, thoroughly and critically that is, the foundation and components of the theory. I had always assumed this was how the Earth was formed as well as other planets, and all matter in general, in the vast galaxy. I have my own theories regarding the cause of the Big Bang but I didn’t second guess the theory; primarily because up until I read the article, I was unaware that scientists were contradicting themselves in this context. Although I still question the age of the universe, I never considered the possibility that it may not have an age and that it may be infinitely old. I was raised to believe that God was and is responsible for the formation of the universe and life. I do believe that every effect has a cause, even if we are unable to logistically determine the link between them. According to the article, the Big Bang was the most recent of the many explosions of matter, and that this repetition will cause another bang in the future (in 10 billion years according to Prof. Turok). However, the future for humanity is uncertain, especially in billions of years from now.

A fair portion of the reading for this week may as well have been in a different language for me. I am no expert on the origins and structure of the universe, but that just adds to my fascination. It’s easy to see now how this topic is not debated as heavily as evolution is. It’s just way too complicated. I can look at a fossil of Australopithicus Afarensis (a distant relative of humans) and say “Yes, that is far too similar to Homo Sapiens for evolution to be untrue.” But I can’t simply look at an equation giving proof of the big bang and understand it right then and there. In many ways, we have to blindly trust what the experts say about universal origins, and then do the same when they change their minds. It’s pretty frustrating to go through this process just because I don’t have the knowledge to make assumptions for myself. But I think it would be even more frustrating to be one of those experts.

That being said, looking at the photo from the Hubble telescope was truly mind blowing. Just imagining what these thousands of other galaxies could hold. Other forms of life? Possibly. We may never know.

As far as the article stating the universe is actually over a trillion years old rather than 14 billion, I have my reservations. I do think it makes sense to believe that there could have been time before the big bang. After all, where did the dense, smaller than an atom-sized particle that caused the big bang come from? Even so, I think I’m satisfied with the one big bang theory for now. It’s easier to wrap my head around (14 billion vs. 986 billion? Ha.). If these scientists can come up with more concrete evidence for their theory (given I can even understand it), I’m open to new possibilities.

These were some fascinating reads and views. I put the first picture as the back ground to my computer. Science is amazing. If religious extremist would have had their way during times like the enlightenment then we would have never gazed upon such infinate beauty. Religion has done a lot to hold back science. From the council of niscea the christian church banned things like yoga which help people gain better understanding. The church likes their sheep to only fallow what the church tells them. Then once the churches ideas are no longer in popular opinion they alter their concepts to keep control of their sheep. I love Neil Turok. In one of the first classes of the semester I brought up some of his ground breaking work regarding the cyclical nature of the universe and time itself. I am so glad to revisit this concept because I think that once we understand it as a whole we can be able to make decisions that are more holistic, sustainable, and understandable. When we all are constantly questioning the role of God and his universe we fail to get anywhere but going backwards. When we embrace science and apply it to our every day lives there is no end to what we can achieve. Knowledge is power!

The idea advanced by Randerson about the possibility of multiple big bangs in the history of the universe is logical. I think it jives well with the infiniteness that is seemingly inherent to the universe. The universe is ever-expanding, so it is logical that it would be eternal, as well. We know all life to have a beginning and an end, so within the bigger picture of the universe's time, it follows that the big bangs would be like the micro-lives of the universe.

The sad truth about such a quest is its unsolvability. It can never be known what happened 14 billion years ago, much less before that. We can only try.

"The Ultra Deep Field observations represent a narrow, deep view of the cosmos. Looking into the Ultra Deep Field is like peering through an eight-foot-long soda straw." Oh the joys of modern journalism: taking 'notoriously difficult and esoteric' stuff and explaining it at the sixth grade level. (Really I'm laughing because I'll bet a few hundred kids will read that quote and decide to become scientists themselves.)
What is time? Does time exist in eternity? If space-time is curved, like a sphere with an infinite line, is there time without context? When scientists say the universe is at least 986 billion years older than previously thought, what on earth does that mean? McConnell says that cosmology hasn't inspired as much religious debate as evolution because it is less 'personally offensive,' but I believe that comprehending the cosmos only provides more opportunities to believe in God's existence.
"The Cosmological Constant is a mathematical representation of the energy of empty space, also known as "dark energy", which exerts a kind of anti-gravity force pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate." I propose a field trip! Let's go to the Sudan lab! The Large Hadron Collider is getting ready to go online! And providing the universe doesn't get sucked into an exponential black hole, I have my crossbow ready in my desk.*
"It happens to be a googol (1 followed by 100 zeroes) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single Big Bang. But its value could be explained if the universe was much, much older than most experts believe." Oh no, CERN and Fermi Labs just spent a =lot= of money for nothing if these guys are right. Yay for science! The Manhattan Project and the subsequent arms race during the Cold War cost more money than the entire economic output of the entire nineteenth century.
*http://xkcd.com/564/

I felt that this week’s readings did not provide a lot of information about the discussion topics but I do not think that this fact that the articles are brief reflects upon the effort of their authors. I feel that there may be two possible explanations for why the articles seem vague. First, scientists may actually not know enough about the cosmos that they cannot possibly write articles going in depth into the topic. Secondly, the articles may be simplified and brief for the benefit of the readers who may have trouble comprehending the information. I was personally extremely interesting the fact that some astronomers claim that there was more than one big bang and that the universes created by these previous bangs are older than the human mind can really understand. In addition, the fact that the universe is possibly much larger than we previously thought raises the question about its creation. I galaxies really are trillions of years old, has God been around long enough to create them, so long before he supposedly created life on earth, or is the big bang purely the result of science without any intervention of God?

I'd first like to say that I'm a little disappointed with the readings for Tuesday's class; the article "One Big Bang" seems very weak due to its shallow depth and complete lack of reference or further explanation behind some of the more complicated aspects of the theories presented.

The fact that this article barely even mentions theories that have been supported for many years now leaves very little to even comment on.

Coming from someone who isn't well versed in 'origin of the universe' theories, after reading this article I still can't help but recognize that I don't really see the importance of this theory in comparison to ones past. It's all still a bunch of math trying to prove or disprove theories about stuff that happened 14 billion (or more) years ago. All this article does is spit out big terms with generalized, fragmented explanations for the non-scientific community, yet all it does is make the theories more confusing.

In his article Randerson discusses the possibility of an infinite universe, as we have touched on previously within a different context. I think this concept is fascinating, not only scientifically, but also theologically. With any creation story involving an omnipotent God, and even a big bang, there remains the question of who (or what) created the creator. And who created the creator of the creator, ad infinitum. The idea of an infinite universe allows for the existence of an eternal God/force/natural law that exists as a universal premise rather than that which brought all time/matter/consciousness into being. Of course this possibility doesn't mesh particularly well with Western religious doctrines, but does serve as a reconciliation of rationality and spirituality.

I find it interesting that the church will take every opportunity to jump on theories that match their theological beliefs yet leave all the others in the dust. Many theories within cosmology tend to cause an interest in only a few being so esoteric, being considered, "mathematical exercises" more than anything else.

Moreover, I'd like to know more about how Lemaitre kept his two spheres of religion and science separated. How could he be behind a theory such as the big bang and not want to link it at all to a creator? It seems like such a logical jump to me.

Infinite Universes... too big a concept for me to grasp. I think the main problem for humans is we are so closed off from the res of the universe, we feel that we are the only things that matter. With the uncountable amounts of stars, there has to be intelligent life outside of this Milky Way. Also, by claiming the universe as infinite, no one can really be sure as to what is out there... which just goes back to the claim that proving the nonexistence of something is much harder than the existence. God, or a God, could therefore exist, because until we can map out everything, there is no chance of knowing what may lie around the corner.

The subject of space is very hard for my brain to grasp. I just can’t seem to understand the concepts of it all. The age of the earth and when it was created is also something very hard for me comprehend. All of this stuff fascinates me but confuses me at the same time. The article about many big bangs was so interesting. It made me realize the more we think we know about space the less we seem to know. The pictures on NASA’s website were so cool. It is really amazing to think about all the things out there. It just goes to show that the human mind will never be all knowing, there will always be something left to discover and even if everything was discovered the explanations for how everything came to be wouldn’t be complete.

I have always been fascinated with the field of physics, because it holds the answer to so much that we don’t know. What happens inside a black hole, are there multiple universes, can we travel through time – these are all questions that physics will eventually answer. I thought it was interesting that a new theory suggested that the universe was not created 14 billion years ago, but it has been in existence for at least a trillion years. Somehow this theory puts me more at ease with our growing knowledge of the universe. I am not put at ease by what it says about the existence of a God; I am put at ease because it begins to answer the question: What happened before the big bang? Well, another big bang, I guess. We might eventually prove that the universe has been in existence for an infinite amount of time, and perhaps that will be the strongest evidence yet that there was no creator. That might be unsettling to some, but after reading the article from The Guardian, it is surprising how close we are to proving such a theory.